|
Celestial Souls and Cosmic Daemons
191
They act as multiplications of the cosmic spirit mediating between the
celestial souls (multiplication of the Universal Soul) and the terrestrial
world. So the natural/astral and medical magic of Ficino is ‘practised
by those who seasonably subject natural materials to natural causes to
be formed in a wondrous way’ and not ‘practised by those who unite
themselves to daemons by a specific religious rite, and, relying on their
help, often’. This is rejected ‘when the Prince of this World was cast
out’. It is only in the context of being worshipped and appeased that
the term ‘daemons’ refers to the Christian demons and devils addressed
by ceremony.
136
Otherwise in natural magic, Ficino advises: ‘you will
bend your efforts to insinuate into yourself this spirit of the world above
all, for by this as an intermediary you will gain certain natural benefits
not only from the world’s body but from its soul, and even from the
stars and the daemons’.
137
These benefits are given a planetary descrip-
tion referring to the source, so Ficino speaks of ‘Mercurial things’, ‘Jovial
things’, etc. that a mage can lay claim to in order to make his talismans
efficacious. They correspond to Mercurial daemons, Jovial daemons, etc.
mentioned in the Commentary on the Symposium and the Three Books on
Life.
138
Daemons descend from the celestial souls,
139
and ‘the goods of
the celestial souls partly leap forth into this our spirit through the rays,
and from there overflow into our souls and partly come straight from
their souls or from angels into human souls which have been exposed
to them’. By angels, Ficino is referring to the higher daemons. This expo-
sure is achieved by prayer, by study, by manner of life, and by conduct
that imitates the beneficence, action and order of the celestials.
140
Ficino attributes his knowledge of the magical operations of the
daemons to the Neoplatonists; namely, Porphyry, Iamblichus and
Proclus.
141
Indeed Proclus in On the Priestly Arts – translated by Ficino –
defines magic as the ‘blending of signs’ drawing down higher virtues by
means of ‘d[a]emonic powers’.
142
Porphyry confirms this in his Letter
to Anebo and in On Abstinence he describes these signs as ‘tokens’.
143
But Iamblichus probably would not approve of the kind of magic advo-
cated by Ficino. Iamblichus distinguishes between two types of magic:
theurgic and vulgar. The first ‘truly connects with the gods, uncontam-
inated in all respects, pure, unwavering, true, and is indeed inaccessible
to and unobstructed by spirits of an opposite nature’.
144
It is a form of
worship whereby sick bodies are healed and which ‘re-arranges many
things that were discordant and disorderly among human beings, and
also it transmits the discoveries of human skills, legal regulations, and
the establishment of customs’. Therefore, it is constructive and reasserts
order as intended by the gods without the interference of spirits or
daemons.
145
Vulgar magic, on the other hand, is inferior; it ‘enjoys
192
The Arabic Influences on Early Modern Occult Philosophy
the presence of no god, but produces a certain motion of the soul,
contrary to the gods, and draws from them an indistinct and phantom-
like appearance sometimes, because of the feebleness of its power’ and
suffers from daemonic interference.
146
This power is weak because it
stems from the natural world not the divine:
This force thus implanted in nature and distributed throughout it,
art, which is itself divided in many forms throughout nature, draws
it in various ways and channels it; it brings to disorder that which
was ordered of itself, fills the beauty and the symmetry of the forms
with asymmetry and ugliness, and transfers the noble end associated
with unity to another unseemly sort of fulfilment, a vulgar one.
147
Ficino cites Iamblichus’s approval of natural magic that is based on
knowledge of correspondences and astrology, and which actually avails
itself to daemonic forces. But Iamblichus’s tone contradicts this. Con-
cerning image magic, he warns: ‘do not, furthermore, compare the
clearest visions of the gods to the images produced artificially from
magic, for these have neither the energy, nor the essence of things
seen, nor truth, but present mere images, reaching only as far as
appearances’.
148
This is followed by an admonition:
It would astonish me if any of the divine theurgists who contemplate
the true forms of the gods, would approve it. For why would anyone
exchange images for true reality, and descend from things superior
to things inferior? Or do we not know that everything comes across
dimly in such shadow-painting, and in this case we are faced with
genuine phantoms of the truth, and things that seem to be good, but
never are? [
. . . ] For god fashions all things, not by celestial physi-
cal motions, nor by some portion of matter, nor by powers divided
in this way: instead, it is by his conceptions, his volitions, and his
immaterial forms, and by means of eternal soul, whether mundane
or supermundane, that he fashions the universe.
149
Therefore, despite the importance of the eternal Universal Soul in the
astral magic of Ficino, it would still be deemed vulgar by Iamblichus.
In addition to the Neoplatonic sources, Ficino found theoretical sup-
port from the Arabic notion of the ruhaniyyat, especially as it is found
in the Picatrix. Concerning talismans and statues, Ficino writes that the
Arabs and Egyptians ‘believe the spirits of the stars are enclosed in them.
Now some regard the spirits of the stars as wonderful celestial forces,
Celestial Souls and Cosmic Daemons
193
while others regard them as daemons attendant upon this or that star.’
Ficino is in fact careful to distance the magical practices of the Three
Books on Life from theurgy as he distinguishes between the emanative
daemonic powers and those gifts that are given in return for worship
by daemons that can only be bad.
150
For Iamblichus only bad daemons
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
